Elsevier

Critical Care Clinics

Volume 20, Issue 3, July 2004, Pages 435-451
Critical Care Clinics

Principles and practice of withdrawing life-sustaining treatments

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccc.2004.03.005Get rights and content

Section snippets

Principles of withdrawing mechanical ventilation

In this era of evidence-based medicine, there is a lack of data to direct clinicians in the optimal management of the dying critically ill patient. Despite the lack of data on optimal management of some aspects of withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, a general consensus exists on the ethical and clinical principles that should guide this care. These six principles are listed in Box 1 [11], [12], [13].

Understanding that the goal of withdrawing life-sustaining treatments is to remove unwanted

The decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatments

Ethical and legal guidelines for decisions to withdraw life-sustaining treatments are well established, and have been presented elsewhere [12], [15]. Competent, informed patients may refuse any life-sustaining treatment. For incompetent patients, appropriate surrogates may refuse life-sustaining treatments based on written advance directives or, in almost all states, the patient's previously stated wishes, values, or best interests . In some circumstances it is ethically appropriate for

Informed consent

Like other medical procedures, withdrawal of life support should be accompanied by informed consent, or at least assent, and documentation of this process in the medical record. Informed consent for the procedure of withdrawing life-sustaining treatment does not refer to the process of signing a consent form. It refers to a process of communication between caregivers and families that focuses on the burdens and benefits of life-sustaining treatment and the options for alternate care. Competent

Appropriate setting and monitoring

Transforming the ICU into a suitable place to fulfill the new goals of terminal care is not a simple task. The ICU and its staff are poised to respond to minor physiologic changes. Comfort, dignity, family access, and quiet may not always receive the highest priority. Particularly when family members and friends will be in attendance, the goal should be to have the patient clean and comfortable in a quiet room devoid of technology and alarms that affords the patient and family privacy. The

Sedation and analgesia

Before performing uncomfortable procedures, clinicians provide patients with adequate medication to prevent anxiety and suffering. Critically ill, hemodynamically unstable patients may not receive optimal sedation when drug-related hypotension or respiratory suppression compromises the goals of maintaining life or liberation from mechanical ventilation. However, when the goal of care is changed to assuring patient comfort, any dosage of medication that is required to meet this goal is

A plan for withdrawal

Before physicians perform procedures like intubation or central venous catheterization, they have a clear plan of action as well as contingency plans for complications. A similar plan should be developed for withdrawing mechanical ventilation. Physicians need to consider which life support measures will be discontinued, in what order, and by whom.

Once a decision has been made to orient the patient's care to comfort, the only criterion to use to judge whether a treatment should be initiated,

Pastoral, nursing, and emotional support

Before interventions are withdrawn, the family should be asked if a priest, pastor, rabbi, or other religious advisor should be called. Caring for patients after life-sustaining technology is withdrawn can require the same level of vigilance and time that aggressive life support requires. Nursing attention should be directed to hygiene, skin care, interacting with family members, and maintaining a quiet environment within the busy ICU. Treatments that may alleviate or prevent uncomfortable

Documentation

Progress notes in the medical record should document the meetings leading up to the decision to withdraw support, the specific plans for withdrawal, and the pharmacologic plan for sedation. This is particularly important because nurses or covering physicians who implement the plan may not have been involved in the original decision or discussions. Although meetings with surrogates need not address specific decisions regarding every piece of life-support technology, communication with other

Evaluation

Quality improvement procedures are important for evaluating the withdrawal of life support and the process of dying, just as they are for other hospital procedures. Members of the hospital critical care committee should review the circumstances of these deaths to evaluate the care. Those involved in the withdrawal of care, including family members, should have the opportunity to evaluate the quality of dying and suggest improvements for the future. These suggestions should be incorporated into

Noninvasive mechanical ventilation

The increasing availability of noninvasive mechanical ventilation provides another option for managing ventilatory support. At least some patients with respiratory failure who were expected to die without intubation and mechanical ventilation can be managed with noninvasive mechanical ventilation [33]. To determine whether this is appropriate, it is essential that clinicians clarify what a patient is refusing when they request not to be “intubated.” Clinicians should view noninvasive mechanical

Summary

The clinician's responsibility to the patient does not end with a decision to limit medical treatment, but continues through the dying process. Every effort should be made to ensure that withdrawing life support occurs with the same quality and attention to detail as is routinely provided when life support is initiated. Approaching the withdrawal of life support as a medical procedure provides clinicians with a recognizable framework for their actions. Key steps in this process are identifying

First page preview

First page preview
Click to open first page preview

References (38)

  • N.A Christakis et al.

    Biases in how physicians choose to withdraw life support

    Lancet

    (1993)
  • D Gianakos

    Terminal weaning

    Chest

    (1995)
  • J.L Vincent et al.

    Terminal events in the intensive care unit: review of 258 fatal cases in one year

    Crit Care Med

    (1989)
  • T.J Prendergast et al.

    Increasing incidence of withholding and withdrawal of life support from the critically ill

    Am J Respir Crit Care Med

    (1997)
  • A Grenvik

    Terminal weaning”; discontinuance of life-support therapy in the terminally ill patient

    Crit Care Med

    (1983)
  • K Faber-Langendoen et al.

    Process of forgoing life-sustaining treatment in a university hospital: an empirical study

    Crit Care Med

    (1992)
  • J Hall et al.

    Principles of critical care

    (1992)
  • H Brody et al.

    Withdrawing intensive life-sustaining treatment—recommendations for compassionate clinical management

    N Engl J Med

    (1997)
  • M.L Campbell

    Forgoing life-sustaining therapy: how to care for the patient who is near death

    (1998)
  • D.A Asch

    The role of critical care nurses in euthanasia and assisted suicide

    N Engl J Med

    (1996)
  • A controlled trial to improve care for seriously ill hospitalized patients. The study to understand prognoses and preferences for outcomes and risks of treatments (SUPPORT). The SUPPORT Principal Investigators

    JAMA

    (1995)
  • Withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining therapy. This Official Statement of the American Thoracic Society was adopted by the ATS Board of Directors, March 1991

    Am Rev Respir Dis

    (1991)
  • B Lo

    Resolving ethical dilemmas: a guide for clinicians

    (1995)
  • A.R Jonsen et al.

    Clinical ethics: a practical approach to ethical decisions in clinical medicine

    (1998)
  • K Faber-Langendoen

    A multi-institutional study of care given to patients dying in hospitals. Ethical and practice implications

    Arch Intern Med

    (1996)
  • T.L Beauchamp et al.

    Principles of biomedical ethics

    (1994)
  • D.A Asch et al.

    Decisions to limit or continue life-sustaining treatment by critical care physicians in the United States: conflicts between physicians' practices and patients' wishes

    Am J Respir Crit Care Med

    (1995)
  • R.M Wachter et al.

    Decisions about resuscitation: inequities among patients with different diseases but similar prognoses

    Ann Intern Med

    (1989)
  • Cited by (57)

    • Incidence and Risk Model Development for Severe Tachypnea Following Terminal Extubation

      2020, Chest
      Citation Excerpt :

      Finally, a study of 32 patients undergoing different PVW practices advised caution when using anticipatory dosing, particularly among comatose patients.36 Although reviews and guidelines treat the practice of dosing medications in anticipation of end-of-life symptoms as ethically and clinically acceptable, they also cite a lack of detailed empirical evidence.70,71 There were differences in risk factors identified by the logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models.

    • How is life support withdrawn in intensive care units: A narrative review

      2016, Journal of Critical Care
      Citation Excerpt :

      Increased privacy is associated with increased family satisfaction with the process of WDLS [27]. There is broad agreement that visiting restrictions should be liberalized, at least to the extent that is does not interfere with the care of other patients [11,12,20–25,28]. Many authors feel that it is important to educate family members prior to WDLS [10–12,20–25,29–35].

    • Withdrawal of Ventilatory Support at Home on Hospice

      2016, Journal of Pain and Symptom Management
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text